1) The unvaxxed are typically younger
2) Omnicron may be very pervasive among younger unvaxxed people
3) Omincron may not be very severe for younger people, so they never bother getting tested, let alone being hospitalized.
Thus the unvaxxed may have Omnicron, but it is so trivial, they never do anything about it.
Hard to tell, unless there is random sampling across age groups.
Although your arguments are themselves true, their application to the presented outcomes is not that easy.
These numbers reflect infection ratios. The vaccines should protect from infection relative to the unvaccinated. That is the logical conclusion of the vaccine's mechanism. After the booster e.g., s-antibody numbers are supposed to be higher than in unvaccinated. Thus, infection probability is supposed to be lower in the vaccinated. Age plays a minor role in this case because even in an older vaccinated immunesystem the protection should be stronger than in an younger, unprotected immunesystem. A Simpson's paradox (that is what you are pointing at), age as an uncontrolled confounder, plays a role probably, but the effect is so strong that it is very likely that the effect will remain even if you would have adjusted the numbers for age. This is for your points 1 and 2.
Point 3 is also of minor influence since testing is requested on many occasions in Denmark. Especially for activities of younger people.
That said, it is important to point oit again that your critique is meaningful but will probably (and unfortunately) not explain the data presented here.
OK, but unless that testing is random, it really doesn't show much. Has been a problem since the beginning of COVID. We should ave been doing random testing all along, rather than self selection, or in addition to self selection.
Very true! The amount of money necessary for generating reliable data is so small compared to the investments that we poured in medicines that can not be used anymore because distribution and communication failed..
I just stumbled upon another interesting fact: the Danish Omicron endemic is mainly focused on the 20-30 years age group. In all other ages the omicronvariant does not climb higher than 50% of the cases and is in total only a small part of the main infections.
This means that age plays probably an even lesser role since most omicron infection are in the same, young age group. Since this age group has been acquiring immunity beyond the vaccinated one more than the other age groups, the above presented effect seems even more solid than without the knowledge about the current age focus.
How about
1) The unvaxxed are typically younger
2) Omnicron may be very pervasive among younger unvaxxed people
3) Omincron may not be very severe for younger people, so they never bother getting tested, let alone being hospitalized.
Thus the unvaxxed may have Omnicron, but it is so trivial, they never do anything about it.
Hard to tell, unless there is random sampling across age groups.
Although your arguments are themselves true, their application to the presented outcomes is not that easy.
These numbers reflect infection ratios. The vaccines should protect from infection relative to the unvaccinated. That is the logical conclusion of the vaccine's mechanism. After the booster e.g., s-antibody numbers are supposed to be higher than in unvaccinated. Thus, infection probability is supposed to be lower in the vaccinated. Age plays a minor role in this case because even in an older vaccinated immunesystem the protection should be stronger than in an younger, unprotected immunesystem. A Simpson's paradox (that is what you are pointing at), age as an uncontrolled confounder, plays a role probably, but the effect is so strong that it is very likely that the effect will remain even if you would have adjusted the numbers for age. This is for your points 1 and 2.
Point 3 is also of minor influence since testing is requested on many occasions in Denmark. Especially for activities of younger people.
That said, it is important to point oit again that your critique is meaningful but will probably (and unfortunately) not explain the data presented here.
OK, but unless that testing is random, it really doesn't show much. Has been a problem since the beginning of COVID. We should ave been doing random testing all along, rather than self selection, or in addition to self selection.
Very true! The amount of money necessary for generating reliable data is so small compared to the investments that we poured in medicines that can not be used anymore because distribution and communication failed..
I just stumbled upon another interesting fact: the Danish Omicron endemic is mainly focused on the 20-30 years age group. In all other ages the omicronvariant does not climb higher than 50% of the cases and is in total only a small part of the main infections.
This means that age plays probably an even lesser role since most omicron infection are in the same, young age group. Since this age group has been acquiring immunity beyond the vaccinated one more than the other age groups, the above presented effect seems even more solid than without the knowledge about the current age focus.